Evidence of meeting #14 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was themes.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you.
I want to make sure I get at least one more question before my time is up. I'll ask if anybody else on the panel has a comment on how we can be attentive to human rights in general, and minority rights in particular, in the context of our development assistance?
4:50 p.m.
Deputy Director, International Policy and Programs, UNICEF Canada
I think I would add that those being marginalized are often those who are having their rights violated. Whether they're ethnic minorities, religious minorities, or linguistic minorities, they're often the ones who are at the fringes. They're the ones who require increased assistance.
If we do that, we're able to make gains for entire communities, whether that's here in Canada or elsewhere. It's a principle of working with marginalized communities.
4:50 p.m.
Senior Director, International Development, CARE Canada
The only last point will be, I think, that's it's a case of targeting inequality, because even in those cases in which we see injustice towards minorities, we also see that even within these minorities, women are disproportionately affected.
I think the element of inequality should be the one that we look at, because that way we can actually measure any inequality that is going to be measured against human rights.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you very much.
We recently went through hearings for a study on women, peace, and security and heard a little bit about the funding challenges that grassroots organizations on the ground have. The point was made that there are many grassroots organizations located in other countries that are doing very effective work. In that context, it was on women's equality issues.
They had a harder time accessing international funding, especially funding for core activities, and some of the reasons were that there are issues around reporting and complying with accountability standards when you have relatively small organizations dealing with international partners.
I know that all of you represent fairly large international organizations, so I would like to hear your thoughts on working with small, on-the-ground, grassroots organizations and on how we can be more attentive to their funding needs and perhaps to their not being capable of being accountable in quite the same way that a large organization with a larger capacity would be.
4:50 p.m.
Senior Director, International Development, CARE Canada
I think I can even speak in the name of the other three organizations.
Even we at the bigger organizations work with the local organizations. The way we engage with partners, the way we work, is that the level of interventions whereby development agencies have been the front line with our own staff is minimal, because there's more capacity in the countries themselves.
The other piece is that part of our job is to build capacity in those organizations so that they can do the job, and not only along the lines of understanding better how to do the job, but to do it up to the standards that taxpayers or agencies are going to ask for.
Today I would say that almost any Canadian organization working overseas is really very engaged in partnerships with local organizations, and if they're not, they should be. Among the things we have to be sure of is that we are not doing it on our own anymore.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you very much to all of you for appearing today.
My question builds on what Mr. Aubin asked about.
From you I've heard no clear opposition to the countries of focus approach. There was some concern around its perhaps being more appropriate to focus on a regional basis rather than take a country-specific approach, but even in the commentary on LDCs and middle-income states, the fact that 73% of the world's poor live in middle-income states—
I think 73% was the number that was quoted. Is that correct?
4:55 p.m.
Senior Director, International Development, CARE Canada
That's correct.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Okay.
From that, I don't hear, once again, clear opposition to the policy. I assume from this that perhaps you think Canada should continue with the countries of focus approach but that there could be points of reform we could focus on.
Question number one is whether my assumption is correct, and number two is whether each of you could point to—yes, in six minutes—one or two reforms that we could see within the countries of focus approach, since this is a study focusing specifically on that policy.
4:55 p.m.
Deputy Director, International Policy and Programs, UNICEF Canada
I can start.
UNICEF Canada is not advocating for countries of focus. I'll repeat that: we're not advocating for countries of focus. What we are advocating for is a focus on the most vulnerable people—a thematic focus.
Investing wisely, investing in children—we know that they are the best investment you can make—and investing in the underfunded areas of the sustainable development goals are areas in which I think Canada can look to modify its existing strategy. Canada has already focused on children and youth, so continue that.
Canada needs to be flexible. I think this has come up time and time again here from our colleagues: aid needs to be flexible. Canada needs to be nimble to be able to respond to things such as Ebola, such as the Zika virus, such as the Syrian crisis or the Nigeria-plus conflict, if that blows up.
We need to make sure we have that flexibility so that we can respond to the greatest need and do it in a way that is responsible and isn't just a Band-Aid solution.
4:55 p.m.
Senior Director, International Development, CARE Canada
First, I think we are not discussing how humanitarian assistance should be focused, because it shouldn't be focused. Humanitarian assistance is very clear in the way it responds to needs.
When we talk about needing to focus, it's on poor people and not on poor countries. That is going to be one of the elements. Our point is that there is going to be some kind of focus because we cannot go everywhere, but our suggestion is that the focus be around the criteria.
The way the criteria we identified are going to give us some focus is in targeting the inequality of the poorest of the poor and in the way these criteria are going to be aligned with the sustainable development goals we all have agreed to.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Senior Director, International Development, CARE Canada
Well, I can talk about the ones that we are looking at as an agency.
Again, inequality will be one of the most important ones. Looking at an index that measures any kind of inequality will be critical, because we have seen that we are not getting to the level of development that we all envisioned with the millennium development goals. We also know that the more equal the country is, the more developed it's going to be. That will be one element.
Other indicators are going to be very specific or more technical, I think. For instance, looking at malnutrition and looking at maternal mortality provides two critical indicators that are going to tell us a lot about what is going on in a specific country beyond nutrition and the mortality rate.
Another one that I think is critical is climate change, because we are going to be looking now at the long-term plan, and climate change is having an impact in that long term. Looking at what countries, what regions are going to be more affected will be critical, because if we decide to have a plan, we cannot have a plan that is going to change in five years.
The other one has to be criteria that allow us to be flexible, because the reality of the communities we work with and serve is that things change. We cannot be very rigid on that one. I think that one is probably going to be more difficult on the policy side.
5 p.m.
Vice-President, Programs and Policy, World Vision Canada
I'll hand this mostly to my colleague Rachel, but I think one of the realities of this particular piece is that those 73% may be residing in middle-income countries right now. The trend lines are what we need to watch out for, and the volatility is such that some of the things we're listening to right now—Zika or Ebola—are things we really didn't hear much about when the last priorities were set.
I don't want to dodge the question. In a sense we're a little agnostic on the country prioritization matter, as long as there's flexibility in the policy to meet the changing realities affecting human beings writ large in these contexts.
I think Rachel can speak to some of that.
5 p.m.
Team Leader, Programs and Policy, World Vision Canada
One thing we wanted to make clear today is that we should turn on its head the idea of fragility and see, whether in a middle-income or a low-income country, what addressing it means, and see that the way it is going to impact the world, moving forward, is critical.
We spoke today about how violence in countries that we see as middle income is causing mass displacement into other countries. That has an impact when we look beyond these countries that we would perceive as darlings in development. In moving forward and doing great things with the work, we have to see that there are pockets of vulnerability within these countries.
Our recommendation to the Canadian government, as you look at these countries of priority, is to identify who within these various countries, whether or not they're considered middle income or conflict affected, are the most vulnerable, and to target the aid towards those people.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bob Nault
I don't think so, no.
Thank you very much for that, though, Mr. Fragiskatos. Unfortunately, my job as the chair is sometimes not as enjoyable as it should be.
I want to take this opportunity to thank UNICEF Canada and of course World Vision Canada and CARE Canada for making this presentation.
Here is one question to take away and to come back to us on in writing, if you will.
It's clear, if you take a look at the countries of focus since 2000, that only eight countries have been consistent throughout this last 16 years. What that tells us is that there has been some change, and to go to Mr. Alba-Corral's documenting of our need to look at this more in the long term, I'd be very interested in the approach to this vis-à-vis our having 25 or 40 countries of focus. It seems to me we've been rotating countries as it is, over the last 16 years, because only about eight are consistent from 2000 on.
I want you to think about this because it comes to the issue you've been speaking to, but it also is contrary to your interest in and vision of being flexible and being able to move here, there, and everywhere. There may be a couple of issues or ways we can do this from a funding perspective and from a policy perspective.
I'd be very interested in your comments in writing, if you could, to help the committee with those major issues.
On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you very much. We look forward to hearing from you in the not too distant future.
Colleagues, we're going to take two minutes, and then we're going to go right to our next presenters.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bob Nault
Colleagues, please take your seats.
In the second hour we will hear from some individual academics, which is very important to this process as well.
The individuals before you are François Audet, Lauchlan Munro, and Stephen Brown. Mr. Brown is a professor at the School of Political Studies, University of Ottawa; Mr. Munro is the director at the School of International Development and Global Studies at the University of Ottawa; Monsieur Audet is a professor at the School of Management at the Université du Québec à Montréal.
The list shows Mr. Brown first, so Mr. Brown, why don't you start?
5 p.m.
Dr. Stephen Brown Professor, School of Political Studies, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I am happy to be here today to speak to you about issues related to development assistance from Canada. As the chair, Mr. Nault, said earlier, I am a professor at the University of Ottawa's School of Political Studies. I have been working on development assistance issues for at least two decades, and on Canadian development assistance for about 15 years. It is with pleasure that I will be sharing with you the results of my research and observations in the medium term, not to mention the long term.
I should also mention that I've written a number of publications on development assistance from Canada, including a chapter I sent to the clerk today. I don't know whether it will be possible to provide copies of it to MPs and committee members. I am also co-editor of several books on development assistance, the latest of which will be out in a few weeks. This second edition is entitled Rethinking Canadian Aid.
I'll be happy to send copies of the book to each and every one of you, if that would be welcome.
I'm very happy to be talking about the question of focus, because I think it's quite a red herring in foreign aid programs, and not just Canada's. I think there's too much emphasis being put on which countries and which sectors and on the idea that if we just get the countries right and we just get the sectors right, with the themes right, Canada or whatever country we're talking about will have a much more effective aid program.
There's actually no evidence that focusing on a smaller number of countries or themes increases aid effectiveness. I believe my colleague Lauchlan Munro will be talking about that. He has published on this point. He makes a very compelling case.
What I would like to say is that it introduces an element of “flavour of the month”. It's not quite “the month”, because it usually takes a few years for priorities to change. If we look at the Chrétien government, we see that they actually changed pretty frequently, often every time there was a new minister. A new minister would come in, and agriculture would be put on the list. Then the next minister would come in, and agriculture would come off and children would come on.
Even if we only revise our themes and our countries every few years, this introduces many elements that are actually contrary to aid effectiveness principles. One thing that is pretty obvious would be volatility or unpredictability and the perception that Canada cannot be seen as a reliable partner working with specific countries or working on specific themes.
It can also lead to over-concentration. If we're picking themes that are trendy internationally, then we're following the herd. We're spending money where everybody else is spending money and we're neglecting themes that are neglected by other donors.
In terms of countries, let me illustrate some of the quandary that Canadian aid has been in because of this rotating list.
Burkina Faso and Benin were introduced as countries of focus or development partners, depending on the terminology used at the time. They were added to the list in 2005. They had not previously been on the list. They were added in 2005, removed in 2011, and added again in 2014. I think you can understand that this is not a formula for effective aid or being a reliable partner.
Having a list of countries of focus also constrains us needlessly. It introduces new problems when something happens in a certain country and we don't wish to continue our aid there.
For instance, soon after Burkina Faso was re-added to the list in 2014, there was a coup, and Canada suspended aid. Recently Canada suspended aid to Mozambique, a country of focus, because of corruption; aid was suspended to Mali, a country of focus, because of a coup; and aid was suspended to Haiti, a long-standing country of focus, as well. This introduces a very unhealthy dynamic, if what we care about is aid effectiveness.
To me, the question of focus is mainly one of branding. It's, for one thing, to be able to say that “we”—Canada or the Canadian government, or quite often “we”, the political party in power—have this as our branded aid program: this is what we do.
I would say that this is in many ways very limiting. You heard from the previous witnesses about how it constrains countries in terms of lack of flexibility. If Ebola comes up and you're working in one country but not another, this hampers efforts.
The targets of having 75% or 80% or 90% of your bilateral aid focused in one country is not driven by effectiveness; it's driven by the idea that you can say this and it looks good to the Canadian public.
I would abolish the list of countries of focus. I think we should focus on certain types of countries, and I would agree with people from the previous panel who talked about low-income countries and fragile states. It doesn't mean that we should not provide assistance in middle-income countries, but I think our focus, even if we don't name the countries, should be on low-income and fragile states.
If you choose not to follow my advice and want to maintain a list, I have a few recommendations.
One would be to drop Ukraine. Ukraine is not even a developing country, in most people's perspective. It is literally at the border of the European Union, and they are much better equipped to provide assistance. It is also not a country with a lot of absorptive capacity right now, because of great instability and corruption.
Other countries that have made their way onto the list that I don't think should be priorities for Canada, whether they are named or not, would be Colombia, Mongolia, and Peru.
I think we also need to take into account the issue of donors, of donor darlings, and of orphans. We can't just think, in isolation, “What should Canada do?” We need to look at what other countries are doing.
Consider, for instance, Mozambique. Everybody's in Mozambique. Does Canada also need to be in Mozambique? There are some countries, such as the Central African Republic, that were neglected for a long time by all the donors. This had maybe not a direct but at least an indirectly detrimental effect and reinforced instability in that country.
Myanmar is another example. It was added to Canada's list in 2014. I think it's part of a global rush not only to have a presence in Myanmar but also to have access to Myanmar's mineral resources.
I do not think these are good reasons to have these countries as countries of focus.
I'm especially interested, if Canada continues to select countries of focus, in what the criteria will be. Until recently one of the criteria on the Global Affairs website was the country's alignment with Canadian foreign policy. I noticed today that it's no longer there.
I was actually happy to see it was no longer there, because alignment with Canadian foreign policy is not about development; it's about Canada. This can often harm aid effectiveness, and it is not the purpose of foreign aid. Foreign aid is defined by Canadian law to be all about poverty reduction, and the definition of official development assistance agreed to, including by Canada, in the OEDC development assistance committee, DAC, means that it has to be directed towards the welfare of the recipient country.
Now I'd like to talk a little bit about themes. I'm aware that I should probably go too quickly, though the interpreters might not like that, because we're running late and I certainly don't want to steal time from my colleagues.
Regarding themes, again the tendency has been “flavour of the month”. As I mentioned before, every time we had a new minister or a new government, we had new themes.
I notice that the instruction I received for the discussion here today—or perhaps it's the mandate for this committee—is to talk about “the sectoral themes that the Canadian government has prioritized, namely food security, sustainable economic growth, and securing the future of children and youth”.
I was actually quite surprised by this, because it is my understanding that the Canadian government has already moved on to new themes. I was at a consultation at Global Affairs Canada on Friday, and Ms. Gould, the parliamentary secretary, was there. We were presented with six new themes. I'm interested in hearing from the members of the committee, perhaps after the hearing, to what extent you're examining the old themes, when it seems that the new themes have already been decided.
I have a lot to say about these new themes, but I won't say it now because of time. If you want to ask me a question about these specific themes, I would be very pleased to share my thoughts with you and also some thoughts, from what I've seen, on the consultation process.
One question I have about themes, and I've been following them for the past decade or more, is whether they actually mean anything. Sometimes we have so many themes that you can fit almost anything into them, in which case they don't actually provide any focus at all. In other cases it could be that they do have an influence, but in such a case, it's mainly about branding, about being able to say “this is what we do”.
When we had new themes in 2009, we included food security, because that was a hot topic at the time. Now the six new themes don't include food security.
Or do they? When I asked Global Affairs officials about it, they told me how, from these six themes, you could sort of fit food security into three of them. That to me suggested that it's not about actually changing the work but about changing the optics, and I don't think that's a very effective use of anybody's time.
To conclude, I would say that Canada should not focus on specific themes unless we take a global theme, such as poverty reduction, or maybe add inequality, because those are the real purposes of aid. What we do should be focused on reducing and perhaps even eliminating poverty and reducing inequality.
I don't think we can reduce inequality, but that is what's defined in the ODA accountability act.
We should not be entertaining reasons of trade and investment, as has been the case in the past. Reducing the amount of partisan branding of particular themes and countries of focus would create more staying power.
To conclude, to me focus is not the magic bullet. It should not actually be the main topic under discussion, if we want to improve Canadian aid.
If the committee is interested, we can talk about other things that would improve Canadian aid, such as decentralization, empowering people on the ground, or giving decision-making power and spending power to people on the ground who understand what is going on in the country. We heard about the need to be nimble. You cannot be nimble when you're in Ottawa and don't have a strong sense of what's going on on the ground and need 23 signatures and three and a half years to get any new project approved.
I will end there. Thank you very much.
5:20 p.m.
Prof. Lauchlan Munro Director, School of International Development and Global Studies, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
I will be speaking to you in English, but if you'd like to ask me any questions or make any comments in French, it will be my pleasure to respond to you in the official language of your choice.
Countries like Canada provide aid to foreign countries for a variety of reasons. Sometimes we seek to alleviate poverty overseas, sometimes we want to help contribute to some global public good, sometimes we want to win friends and influence people abroad, and sometimes we contribute funding just so that we can have a seat at the table and know what's going on in that part of the world. Overarching all of these objectives is, of course, a concern that public funds should be spent wisely, effectively, and honestly.
Sometimes these various objectives come into conflict with each other. We saw an example of that under the last government, when the policy of focusing our aid on fewer countries in the name of greater aid effectiveness came into conflict with our objective of winning enough friends and influencing people to get them to vote us onto the UN Security Council.
The idea that Canada's aid should be focused on fewer recipient countries is rooted in the objective of aid effectiveness. The idea of greater country focus is, as my colleague Stephen Brown has said, an old one. Indeed, I suspect I was invited here today because over a decade ago I wrote an article on this, and I entitled my article “Focus-pocus?” I have long been, and continue to be, a sceptic on country focus as a way of increasing aid effectiveness.
Focusing aid on fewer countries makes intuitive sense, and that's why the idea became and has stayed popular in policy and media circles. Working in fewer countries means that we have fewer overhead costs for each country program. If we work in fewer countries, we get to know their problems better and can work more effectively with them to solve their problems, or so the argument goes.
Why, then, do I remain a sceptic about the benefits of country focus as a way of increasing the effectiveness of Canada's aid program?
Well, first of all, I know of no evidence whatsoever to prove the assertion that working in fewer countries increases a given aid program's effectiveness—not for Canada, not for any other country. I'm not even aware of any attempt to construct a measure of aid effectiveness for bilateral programs that could then be correlated with a measure of country focus. While country focus may make intuitive sense, the lack of concrete evidence to support the notion is absolutely striking. The idea that aiding fewer countries will make Canada's aid program more effective is faith-based policy-making, not evidence-based policy-making.
The most focused bilateral aid program in the world, as far as I know, is the Belgian development cooperation group. Historically, well over half of Belgium's aid has gone to a single recipient country, the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Without wishing any disrespect to my Belgian friends and colleagues, I know of no one who will tell you that Belgium's is the best bilateral aid program in the world, or even close to it.
If Canada did focus its aid on fewer countries in the name of aid effectiveness, would that be enough? Would Canada's aid suddenly become more effective if we gave it to fewer countries? It might, but if and only if Canada did other things to increase its aid effectiveness.
I have argued before this committee in the past that the first step in aid effectiveness should be a fundamental rethink of the tsunami of bureaucratic rules, oversight, and risk- and results-based management procedures that have engulfed our good public servants in recent years under governments of all political stripes in the name of accountability.
I hasten to add, lest I be accused of being partisan, that I cannot recall any opposition party denouncing this tendency either.
Moreover, the logic of country focus tells us that our bilateral aid program would be more effective because we would be specializing on fewer countries and would get to know these fewer countries better, but that logic, if we really followed it—and we haven't, as my colleague has just shown, with all the flipping in and out of that list—would impel us to redesign Global Affairs Canada's whole system of recruitment, training, career development, and rotation. At the risk of oversimplifying somewhat, our current system values generalists, not country or regional experts. Taking country focus seriously would imply a generation-long attention span by politicians and senior public officials to set a list of focus countries, and then follow that up with a systematic cultivation of deep expertise on individual countries, including fluency in local vernacular languages.
I cannot end without making one final comment on the whole issue of country focus in our bilateral aid program. That comment is to say that country focus is a very 20th century way of looking at things. It assumes that bilateral aid and bilateral co-operation with independent states is at the heart of the aid and international co-operation business. While that might have been the case 30 or 40 years ago, it is no longer the case.
Today the most interesting and important challenges in international development and international co-operation all cross national borders. Climate change; new and emerging diseases like Zika, Ebola and SARS; international peace and security; the fight against transnational organized crime, including terrorism; international financial instability—none of these problems will be solved or even dented by bilateral aid programs. They can only be addressed by international—indeed, global—co-operation.
At the next level down, the more mundane but nonetheless important issues, such as river basin management, the construction of regional infrastructure projects, and the movement of refugees, require transnational networks of projects that are consciously linked and complementary with each other.
Focusing our bilateral program on fewer countries is not inherently a bad idea, but it is no magic bullet and it is an unproven idea; in fact, it's one that's never been tried. Furthermore, and more importantly, we have reason to believe that the frontiers of development co-operation lie elsewhere, in areas where co-operation must be multilateral, not bilateral, and where developing countries must be brought in as equal participants in the search for solutions to problems that are global and networked and beyond the power of any single actor, even the most powerful, to conquer.
Thank you for your consideration.
May 17th, 2016 / 5:25 p.m.
François Audet Professor, School of Management, Université du Québec à Montréal, As an Individual
Good evening everyone. Thanks for inviting me today.
I'm a professor at UQAM. I head the Canadian Research Institute on Humanitarian Crisis and Aid at the School of Management. However, before becoming an academic, I worked at CARE Canada for a number of years, as well as at the Red Cross. I was a practitioner and now I'm a researcher, which makes me a bit schizophrenic. That said, you need not worry.
I'll do my presentation in French, but as did my colleague, if there's any question in English, I'll be happy to respond.
I prepared my allocution trying to answer each of the four questions we were asked. My approach was therefore an academic one. My colleagues have already showed me what was required of us. This is what happens when you are the last one to appear. At least it's reassuring to me because, as scientists, we've arrived at the same conclusions. I will therefore avoid being redundant and and focus my presentation more on the recommendations.
Beyond what my colleagues have said—particularly with regard to inconclusive evidence on sectoral and regional focus —I will say, if I may be so bold, as a former practitioner—and Mr. Brown also noted this—I believe that geographic focus remains, even today, despite everything, a form of consensus that is associated with a way of thinking that is far from scientific, but that still seems absolutely reasonable.
I'd like to pick up on what Mr. Brown was saying about predictability, that is to say, the importance of being predictable. We understand that we're dealing with countries that don't have the ability to draw financial resources from taxes or their taxation systems. It's clear that their funding comes from outside the country. If they can't plan for the long term in developing their own policies, then we become a bad partner. I think that long-term agreements with countries or regions would be the way to go in that regard.
It's already been said, but I'll emphasize again that, for me, the importance that geographic focus can have on building local capacity is the other key element. This means that, within this predictability, it's important that local institutions and governance be able to develop. Unfortunately, we are often faced with extremely deficient and dysfunctional governance at all levels. If we are able to build local governance over time, I think we'll become a better partner.
The second question we were asked was whether Canada should focus its bilateral development assistance on fewer countries. This relates a bit to the first point. I believe that what my colleagues and I have found is a failure that's due to our country's inability to remain focused on specific countries. Rest assured that we're not the only ones.
Today I looked at the most recent statistics. Canada provides bilateral assistance to 130 countries around the world, out of a total of about 198. Ultimately, we're not that far from offering support to the United States. As far as I'm concerned, without getting into too narrow of a focus by country, I believe it is crucial that we dramatically reduce the number of countries with which we have bilateral or multilateral assistance agreements.
I think Canada is a very unique country. Its history, its diaspora, and its bilingualism make it such that we're locked into a number of multilateral and bilateral agreements. In the past, we've seen a good number of politicians, ministers, and governments pressured by requests and demands, which forced us to say yes because we wanted to be a good actor on the international stage. However, I think that in order to do that, we have to learn to say no and to keep focused.
We talked about the negative example of Belgium, and I agree. But, there are still countries that focused on assistance, which yielded more positive results. Take Denmark, for example. Canada could at least use it as a model because it's a good example. Denmark's assistance to Bolivia and Angola, among others, has been quite fruitful, even though there were many difficulties.
The third question we were asked was how Canadian assistance should take into account the varying circumstances in different countries? As we just mentioned, in the aftermath of the major crisis of the Ebola pandemic, with earthquakes, climate change, and the increased presence of ISIS, Canada has no other choice but to incorporate humanitarian assistance and the protection of civilians into its international assistance program.
These major issues, like others that were already mentioned, are not themes centered on specific countries. Rather, they are broader and more long-standing themes in certain regions and that must be analyzed in a scientific manner or, at a minimum, given serious consideration. All of this is aimed at understanding these issues and trying to respond in a general or geographic manner—and not by country—to the great challenges facing humanity today.
I do not share the view of my colleague, Stephen Brown. I think that Canada should withdraw immediately from middle-income countries, starting with Ukraine. It doesn't make us a good donor country. I think that withdrawing from middle-income countries would be a step in the right direction. We could reduce the number of countries of focus and significantly increase Canadian assistance based on the vulnerability of populations rather than on our own business opportunities, as was often the case in the past.
The fourth question is as follows: how can Canada align its bilateral assistance programs with its ongoing commitment to support the implementation of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development? The previous panel of witnesses discussed this a bit. It was interesting. I think it showed that the objectives of the United Nations were completely and practically always unattainable and unrealistic. So what happens is that you fail, change names, and start over again.
Obviously, having the same objectives becomes a kind of roadmap for donor countries to coordinate and harmonize their efforts. Coordination among donor countries is, in my view, one of the crucial issues, beyond even the geographic concentration we should have. My response to this question is that Canada must support this initiative while ensuring it always has added value.
I am getting to the value-added dimensions accompanied by a few recommendations. I will briefly list five.
Indeed, Canada must absolutely avoid the trap of spreading itself too thinly policy-wise. Even if there are howls of protest—as there sometimes are when political decisions are made, and you would know this better than I—I think we should withdraw our financial assistance from middle-income countries in a logical and gradual manner.
We must also ensure that building local capacity and governance is the central driver of all our actions. In fact, in my own writings, and based on my experience, this is certainly where there is the most agreement on effective ways of helping poorer countries free themselves from the grip of poverty. As I understand it, international assistance will have to cease one day because there will be no more poverty. To this end, we must indeed ensure the emancipation of our partners.
More than a cross-cutting theme, Canadian assistance must ensure that all of its methods are directed towards strengthening local institutions. Despite the fact that my former employers were seated at the table a few minutes ago, I note that this may involve funding local organizations without going through Canadian intermediaries. What Mr. Brown was saying earlier is fundamental. We must absolutely keep open the possibility of decentralizing assistance and having decisions made locally. Obviously, local populations and governance structures are in the best position to know how they want to work towards achieving their emancipation.
The third recommendation is aimed at ensuring women are at the heart of development. I won't say much more on the matter because it appears that the current government, particularly Minister Bibeau, already issued a statement on that this week or last week. As far as I'm concerned, I was extremely satisfied to hear that issues of gender equality will be a priority for this government.
The fourth recommendation is to capitalize on the added value Canada and its implementing organizations bring to the table. I'm basically referring to NGOs in the case of bilateral international assistance. In terms of geography, I won't be providing many details. I will do as my colleagues did. If you have any questions, we can discuss them later.
More specifically, we are prisoners of our bilingualism. As a result, dimensions related to West Africa and Haiti obviously have much meaning. The Horn of Africa also has a lot of meaning for English-speaking countries. However, India and Ukraine leave me scratching my head about the kind of expenditures we are making with our tax dollars.
On a thematic level, we quite clearly bring added value to the fields of health, water, and economic development. We need to maintain this important envelope of emergency humanitarian aid, which is an extremely well-built tool in terms of reacting and responding to the multitude of crises confronting humanity right now.
This last point is particularly important to me. I'm convinced that it is also of particular concern to my colleagues. It's the dimension of research and building Canadian capacity. What does this mean? It means that today, Canada's assistance policy depends, in my view, essentially on American and European assistance policies. By “American”, I mean the United States, of course. Why?
Why is that the case? Most humanitarian and development organizations are either American or European, and they themselves depend on external capacities. The development of their own capacities and analytic networks and their current influence on government officials tend to skew somewhat our perception of reality.
Canada must commit, with its community of practice, organizations, and researchers, in other words, with its community as a whole, to strengthening its capacity, and to stronger institutions that are more capable of carrying out research and establishing evidence to help us provide the information you need to make the best possible decisions.
The questions that you are asking today are completely legitimate and necessary. However, as I just mentioned, they are an indicator of the fact that we still have too little information and evidence on the impact of our official development assistance. We need to better understand what works. We need to find better ways of sharing what does not work as a result of our capacities. The assistance field is heavily controlled by NGOs, and the field is obviously strongly linked to consultation. This does not favour openness with regard to lessons learned. Instead, the assistance is presented as a black box, a charity business, and we are not at all up to date on what is being done, in particular in several European countries.
We must demand a better understanding of the problems and failures, because they do exist, to find solutions. Unfortunately, the failures are being hidden and what works well is basically being repeated.
Lastly, I would simply like to mention that Global Affairs Canada is currently providing one million dollars in funding to different think tanks and research centres worldwide, in particular in Europe and the United States, and that no funding is allocated to Canadian research and capacity development organizations. I am thinking of ODI and ALNAP, among others.
The Canadian government has resources. It encourages capacity development outside our country. Obviously, today we have very few resources, with limited research capacity and Canadian organizations that depend on their international networks to develop a Canadian public policy.
I am certain that if we reinvest in our capacities and our community of practice, we could better inform decision-making and possibly present much more satisfactory evidence to the committee.
Thank you.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bob Nault
Thank you very much, Mr. Audet, and to all three of you.
We're going to go straight to questions, and we will start with Mr. Allison.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dean Allison Conservative Niagara West, ON
Gentlemen, thank you very much for being here. It was great to have a different perspective, and certainly one that will cause us to think a little bit more.
Mr. Brown, I have to go. You said you'd like to talk about the six themes that our country is looking at. Would you care to share those? Can you give us your thoughts on those?